Lauren Alyssa Binhammer

The appellant appealed a 54-month global sentence imposed following conviction for possession for purposes of trafficking methamphetamine, marijuana, and morphine, as well as simple possession of other controlled substances.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, that the judge failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances, improperly considered defence conduct as aggravating, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The appellate court found the trial judge's paramount concerns of denunciation and deterrence were appropriate, that mitigating factors were properly considered, and that the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record spanning over three decades with approximately eight prior convictions for possession for purpose of trafficking.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision that imposed concurrent victim surcharges on an offender convicted of two counts of theft under $5,000.

The central issue was whether sentencing judges have discretion to impose victim surcharges concurrently or whether surcharges must be imposed separately for each offence.

The Court of Appeal held that victim surcharges are imposed automatically by statute for each and every offence, and sentencing judges have no discretion to order concurrent surcharges.

The court distinguished surcharges from time-based sentences and fines, finding that the legislative history and statutory language clearly demonstrate Parliament's intent that surcharges be imposed for each conviction.